Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: JackDog Date: May 23, 2012 12:04pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit?

Thanks for that link! It was easy to understand and I learned a few things. I'm a taper and I record at 24/48 but listen to everything at 16/44.1, so even though I was doing that for the wrong reasons (I thought that my stereo wasn't good enough, but it might be someday in the future) it's good to hear that I was doing the right thing.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dyneq Date: May 23, 2012 12:26pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit?

You're welcome! He's a very good writer, isn't he?

I also tape, and while I always use 24 bit (for post-processing headroom) for recordings, 48 is overkill (see the summary again).

It's a very interesting topic these days, with many companies trying to capitalize on people's desire to purchase something with a higher number on it (it's larger, so it must be better!). However, I do think that Neil honestly believes that he is doing a service by releasing his work this way.

In my opinion, all other things being equal, a good recording has more to do with how the recording was captured (mics, levels, room acoustics, etc.) and mastered.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: JackDog Date: May 24, 2012 9:31am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: 24 bit vs. 16 bit?

It seemed to me that it concentrated more on 16 vs. 24 but I got the impression that recording at 48 was good for the headroom.